size of this library
Printed From: Codejock Forums
Category: Codejock Products
Forum Name: Toolkit Pro
Forum Description: Topics Related to Codejock Toolkit Pro
URL: http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7932
Printed Date: 10 June 2024 at 4:28pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: size of this library
Posted By: vjedlicka
Subject: size of this library
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 9:34am
|
Hello,
I am considering buying this library. How big is it? I am asking because ToolkitProEval1113vc60D.dll is 16MB, way too big.
Thank you
Vaclav
|
Replies:
Posted By: dennisV
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 9:48am
|
The release DLL seems to be around 5.5 megs, but I statically link myself and the executable including CodeJock is under 4 megs.
------------- // W7 64 Ultimate SP1 // VS 2008 // CodeJock 16.2.3 (MFC) |
Posted By: vjedlicka
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 10:17am
|
Thanks!
If I link statically, does it matter which features I use in my code?
|
Posted By: mgampi
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 1:07pm
|
Hi;
Statically linking means that only the code used in your app will be inserted into the binaries.
------------- Martin Product: Xtreme Toolkit v 19.0.0, new Projects v 19.1.0 Platform: Windows 10 v 1909 (64bit) Language: VC++ 2017 |
Posted By: terrym
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 1:43pm
|
We also statically link ours and have quite a large project which is only 4.16mb for release build, we are currently using 11.1.3 of XTP ------------- Thank you, Terry Mancey email terry@tmancey.ltd.uk | linkedin www.tmancey.ltd.uk | twitter @tmancey |
Posted By: vjedlicka
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 2:49pm
|
That is a good news
Thank you!
|
Posted By: dennisV
Date Posted: 04 September 2007 at 7:37pm
|
I also use BCG (in some projects), and a pretty simple SDI program which doesn't do much is about 2.2 MBs statically linked. I'd say the 2 libraries (BCG and CodeJock) are pretty much similar in size.
------------- // W7 64 Ultimate SP1 // VS 2008 // CodeJock 16.2.3 (MFC) |
Posted By: Rhogan
Date Posted: 05 September 2007 at 10:35pm
| You can reduce the size of the Codejock library by adding some defines within the precompiled header to make it some unneeded controls are not included. I know this, because this was once posted here in these forums but off the top of my head I have no idea what the defines were. Stuff like that needs sticked in the message listing, or added to some article. Codejock is awesome but their documentation -- is lousy. Reading their help files have you ever noticed that even their copy of Doxygen has never been registered; probably a bootleg copy. |
Posted By: dennisV
Date Posted: 06 September 2007 at 4:41am
I have to agree regarding documentation, but it's the same for most libraries. It's the support that counts  and reading code, for which there's usually no time 
------------- // W7 64 Ultimate SP1 // VS 2008 // CodeJock 16.2.3 (MFC) |
Posted By: vjedlicka
Date Posted: 06 September 2007 at 5:09am
|
Documentation is lousy, but this forums seems to work well :) BTW which one do you like more, BCG or Codejock? |
Posted By: terrym
Date Posted: 06 September 2007 at 5:34am
|
Personally I've never tried BCG, and now we are with CodeJock will stay forever as we believe the support is of a high standard. Agreed the documentation is not the best, but if we have issues we get prompt answers. ------------- Thank you, Terry Mancey email terry@tmancey.ltd.uk | linkedin www.tmancey.ltd.uk | twitter @tmancey |
Posted By: Simon HB9DRV
Date Posted: 06 September 2007 at 5:44am
|
If Codejock were to document everything they would ship many DVD's - it would be way too big to download. There would just be too much and would never be read.
So I'm happy with the samples - if you know enough to use a library like Codejock then you will find what you need in the samples.
Considering what we pay the results are excellent. ------------- Simon HB9DRV |
Posted By: terrym
Date Posted: 06 September 2007 at 5:48am
|
Totally agreed, as if we cant find in samples Oleg etc. are fast with replies and fixes if necessary.
------------- Thank you, Terry Mancey email terry@tmancey.ltd.uk | linkedin www.tmancey.ltd.uk | twitter @tmancey |
Posted By: dennisV
Date Posted: 06 September 2007 at 7:19am
I'm more experienced with BCG (3+ years) and I still use it everyday, but I've used CodeJock for the first time about 4 years ago (and stopped) and then started using it again for another project just now and I must say that eventhough I know BCG's shortcomings pretty well (and thus I can get around them better), I like CodeJock better. Support-wise they're about the same, documentation in both... well, doesn't exist but they get the job done. I would say that CodeJock is a bit more feature-rich.
------------- // W7 64 Ultimate SP1 // VS 2008 // CodeJock 16.2.3 (MFC) |
vjedlicka wrote: